Hi, > On 28 Apr 2015, at 15:46, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 4/21/15 5:39 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Is there a plan to publish an errata to sync the Web Storage Rec [1] with >> the latest? I counted 8 commits cherry picked into the Editor's Draft since >> Rec [2]. >> >> If no errata publication is planned, I'd expect the Rec to clearly indicate >> its status. > > Re the priority of this issue, is this mostly a "truth and beauty" > process-type request or is this issue actually creating a problem(s)? (If the > later, I would appreciate it, if you would please provide some additional > context.)
It was creating problems. Our QA was confused which spec was the authoritative one, and wrote tests (additional ones, on top of the w-p-t tests) against the Rec spec. These tests failed since Blink is compliant with the latest, not the Rec. More context at: https://crosswalk-project.org/jira/browse/XWALK-3527 > The main thing blocking the publication of errata is a commitment from > someone to actually do the work. I also think Ian's automatic push of commits > from the WHATWG version of Web Storage to [2] was stopped a long time ago so > there could be additional changes to be considered, and the totality of > changes could include normative changes. Did you check for these later > changes? No, I just observed the ED has evolved since the Rec publication. There may be additional changes in the LS that haven't been picked up to the ED. > If you, or anyone else, would like to help with this effort, that would be > great. (If it would be helpful, we could create a new webstorage repo under > github/w3c/, work on the errata in that repo and redirect the CVS-backed > errata document to the new repo.) I can ask if our QA would be interested in contributing. > Personally, I think putting errata in a separate file - as opposed to putting > changes directly into [1] - is mostly "make work" and fails the "principle of > least surprise". However, I think the consortium's various processes preclude > us from doing what I consider is "the right thing". The best way would be to ensure TR reflects what is broadly implemented. If that does not work out due to process reasons, then a visible note at the top pointing to the authoritative spec would be the second best option. That failing, the errata. Thanks, -Anssi >> [1]http://www.w3.org/TR/webstorage/ >> [2]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/webstorage/Overview.html
